TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Delhi Quashes Penalty u/s 271DA, Citing Time-Barred Order Exceeding Limitation Period of Section 275(1)(c.</h1> <h3>Harvinder Paul Singh Versus DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi</h3> The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal concerning the imposition of a penalty under section 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22. ... Penalty u/s 271DA as barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute of the clinching factual position that the same had been initiated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2020 itself and consequential order herein was passed on 26th July, 2023. That being the case, it admittedly does not satisfy the clinching statutory condition of “six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated”. Although the department has indeed sought to get out of the rigor of the impugned limitation period, the factual position which goes unrebutted is that the impugned penalty order is very well passed beyond limitation. See TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. [2024 (11) TMI 506 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. In the case of Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi addressed an appeal concerning the imposition of a penalty under section 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to assessment year 2021-22. The primary legal contention was that the penalty was barred by limitation under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2020, with the consequential order passed on 26th July 2023, exceeding the statutory limitation period of 'six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated.'The departmental representative argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated in January 2023, thus falling within the limitation period. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the penalty order was indeed passed beyond the limitation period. Citing the case of CIT(TDS)-2 Vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 168 taxmann.com 634 (Delhi), the Tribunal quashed the penalty as time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 31st December 2024.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
